The new Montana bill includes some important reforms, such as forbidding the use of asset forfeiture in cases where there has been no criminal conviction. Even if there is a conviction, the authorities may not seize property unless they can prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that it was used in the commission of the crime. This is a much higher burden of proof than was applied previously.

But, as Scott Shackleford points out, the Montana law still has some serious limitations. It does not prevent law enforcement agencies from keeping the proceeds of asset forfeitures for themselves, and it also does not block them from circumventing state constraints on asset forfeiture by partnering with federal agencies through the controversial federal “equitable sharing” program. Outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder recently adopted reforms curtailing that program.

Overall, the Montana law is a significant improvement over the status quo. But it is not as strong as New Mexico’s recent reform law, which forecloses the kinds of loopholes the Montana law left in place. Although we are still far from putting an end to abusive asset forfeiture practices, the Montana and New Mexico laws represent real progress. Other states, such as Michigan, are considering reforms of their own.